Container images outdated and repositories archived, CalVer vs. 0.7 undocumented

[clelange]

I wanted to run Coffea using one of the recommended container images at https://coffea-hep.readthedocs.io/en/latest/installation.html#pre-built-images

I found the following:

• both images coffeateam/coffea-base and coffeateam/coffea-dask have Python 3.10.12 (no particular issue)
• coffea version is 0.7.21 when using latest (probably should be the latest 2025.x release?)
• They have last been updated about a year ago
• The repositories that contain the source for these images at https://github.com/CoffeaTeam/docker-coffea-base and https://github.com/CoffeaTeam/docker-coffea-dask have been archived at the end of last year

Looking at https://hub.docker.com/u/coffeateam, I see, however, that there more recent images, e.g. coffea-base-almalinux9 and coffea-dask-almalinux9. They are built for different Python minor versions, the default is currently Python 3.10.17. The -base- image has coffea 0.7.26 and the -dask- one coffea 2025.5.0rc2.

It would be nice to update the documentation and explain how those images are built.

[ikrommyd]

@clelange coffea base is 0.7.x and coffea dask is 202x.
We use them all the time to run coffea on the LPC cluster and coffea casa. This looks like a documentation problem.

[clelange]

Indeed, coffea-dask-almalinux9 has coffea 2025.5.0rc2. I'll update the issue description.

[nsmith-]

In #1391 the section https://coffea-hep.readthedocs.io/en/latest/getting_started/installation.html#pre-built-images was added. Does that cover the documentation bug?

[ikrommyd]

Ah yes, I think with the docs I update, I made this right. We now explain the distinction between coffea-base and coffea-dask (although I would love to rename or alias coffea-dask now that we have virtual arrays). I think the right names are coffea-07x and coffea-202x or coffea-calver or something.
But yeah, now the docs point to right images produced through https://github.com/CoffeaTeam/af-images.

[nsmith-]

@clelange, let me know if you agree.
I made a follow-up issue for the names CoffeaTeam/af-images#114

[clelange]

Yes, thanks @nsmith- and @ikrommyd --- this is much better!